Feulner: Our rising welfare state

We’re talking about more than 80 means-tested programs, comprising a maze of forms, bureaucrats and regulations — and, all total, they’re close to hitting the magic number.

That’s what the non-partisan Congressional Research Service recently reported. Its findings echo what welfare expert Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation has been saying.

According to Rector, roughly 100 million people — one-third of the U.S. population — receive aid from at least one means-tested welfare program each month. Average benefits come to around $9,000 per recipient.

The phrase “means-tested” refers, of course, to a recipient’s means. He or she must demonstrate that his or her income falls below a certain defined poverty level to get aid in the first place.

But then, as Rector has pointed out before, the aid is a hand-out, not a hand-up. The main purpose of the 1996 welfare reform was to add a work requirement to the equation: If recipients were required to work (or at least be looking for work), welfare wouldn’t become a way of life.

By the beginning of 2012, however, only four federal welfare programs had work requirements. And thanks to the Obama administration, it’s now down to two.

The results were predictable: more people on welfare. For example, in 2009 work requirements were suspended for food stamps. Since then, the number of people on food stamps has doubled.

But wait, some may ask, how does this compare to what we spend on other parts of the budget. Surely this pales compared to what we spend on defense, right?

Actually, it doesn’t. Just the opposite. In 1993, welfare spending surpassed what we spend on defense for the first time since the Great Depression. It’s been climbing ever since.

Under the president’s spending plans, by 2022 we’ll be spending $2.33 on welfare for every $1 we spend on defense. (The ratio is currently $1.33 to $1.) Overall, President Obama plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade.

The combined cost of Social Security and Medicare, at $1.2 trillion, is only slightly greater than the cost of means-tested welfare. This is striking because everyone knows that Social Security and Medicare cost a lot, but the similar cost of means-tested welfare is generally hidden from public view.

Unsustainable debt is bad news, but we have to remember that this isn’t simply about dollars and cents.

It’s about people.

After the 1996 reform, the number of welfare recipients in the primary welfare program (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) dropped by 50 percent as more people got jobs and learned to take care of themselves. Earnings and employment rose. Child poverty went down.

Unfortunately, only one of 80 welfare programs was reformed, and now the Obama administration is abandoning that reform. Yet this is obviously the model we should be expanding throughout the system — not eliminating.

Whoever wins the presidential race in November needs to take a hard look at the spiraling state of welfare spending.

Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a think-tank in Washington.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

If nobody is working, then nothing would be produced (even more money). If nothing is being produced, then there's nothing to buy. You can print all the money you want, but if there's nothing to buy, what good is it?

As is typical, the Heritage Foundation plays fast and loose with the facts by injecting opinions and then pretending them to be facts. Specifically, the Obama Administration did not eliminate the work requirement for welfare benefits. Rather, it has allowed states to come up with their own work requirement programs through applying for waivers. The states are required to apply for waivers, and the granting of waivers requires a result of moving 20% more people to employment and off of welfare than would be expected under the federal rules. So, the author is spinning and turning reality on its head. In addition, the waivers were sought by Republican governors, and they were seeking flexibility in their states' approaches to the work requirements. That is the essence of federalism, which the Heritage Foundation allegedly believes in, except when it is convenient to spin it otherwise for partisan purposes.

The food stamp requirements were first altered by the prior administration. Obama has extended the availability of food stamps because of the rampant unemployment that was the result of the Great Recession. The fact that people thrown out of work just might need the safety net seems to be lost on the author. Of course the last four years has seen an increase in food stamp utilization; it is because of the economic distress in the nation.

Finally, the "means tested" programs would include things like student loans, housing assistance due to floods and hurricanes, vocational assistance job training programs, Head Start, SCHIP federal health insurance funds for children, Meals on Wheels for housebound elderly and handicapped, etc. So the term "welfare" is purposely used to characterize things that one would not normally think of as "welfare". The article is bunk.

recipients follow cash paying customers around to see if they can buy their food with food stamps and they would take the cash is a worthy investment for the country? It happens everyday. Ive been approach twice in this month alone asking if they could buy my food and I give them cash. At first I was stunned now I just call the store manager or the cops. We are giving money to people that REFUSE to make it themselves. The system has made it to easy for them to collect. As we pay for food and housing they pay for hair weaves and new cars and nail jobs or guns. Yes GUNS! I had a kid ask me if he gave me 1100 in food stamps if I could go buy him a gun. I told him I would call the cops and have him arrested if he ever came to me again. Of course seen him two days ago and he got his gun. I wonder who gave him the money? Some sympathizer Im sure. The only problem is who will bail him out when he gets into trouble? Who will he kill to get money? Yeah your going to convince me food stamps is a good program and highly needed!!

Have all able bodied people work hard doing the things that our government pays to have done while they are getting handouts, and if they don't like it they can work elsewhere for their money.
Stop paying loafers to have children to raise as more freeloaders.
Have a child while on the public dime and be charged with a crime,
or have aid cut. Some "Tough Love" would go a long way toward
getting people back to work. I have never been out of work, but I have done some hard work in the hot sun when I didn't have anything better, and I always provided for myself quite well.
I opted not to have a family until I was financially able to support
the family and provide for all of our needs.( Health care included.)
I have paid my family's way, but it wasn't done in 40hrs a week.
For years and years I worked extra long hours to afford the things I needed and wanted, and I have a lot of pride about it.
For these reasons I have no respect for Govt. Freeloaders. I resent
workers giving up their wages for deadbeats. Romney told the truth when he spoke about all of the people that don't contribute. It's factual, and their numbers are growing! We need to cut social handouts and get people to provide for themselves, or do without!
(Of course there are exceptions...)

Kinda hard to work when you are 9 months pregnant on bed rest and the daddy bails out on the mama and baby. This could be one of the exceptions.

Who should go to jail; the mama or daddy or both? The other children will be in foster care of course. The state pays the foster parents nicely along with the medical benefits. The new baby being born in jail should be that real nice rounded justice. What about a complete sterilization for both, to complete the package.

financially able to support the family and provide for all the needs, is the best plan, but sometimes things just don't go that way.

Being charged would probably not result in jail time the first time, but would be a move toward causing concern to the careless breeders and future removal of funds. Yes it would be hard to work while pregnant. It is a hard life when poor decisions are made!
The availibility of contraception makes not getting pregnant easy.
The current system rewards the breeder, and does not deter them.
When their lives are made "hard" by their decisions there will be an incentive to change habits. The children born to these types of people are generally following the same path in life or worse. We can not continue to support the growing numbers of these people.
Our current government administration is not doing a good job at all, and it starts with the President. We need an attitude "change."

[i]"A trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Sorry Senator Dirksen, I was just allowing for inflation."[/i]

Senator Dirksen would be hanging his head in shame if he was still alive witnessing the conduct of the present day Republican party but then again so would many of the Republican party of his day.

Dirksen was wrong about Vietnam but he help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I use to enjoy listening to the man talk with that very unique voice he had. The Republican party and the far right loons of the Tea party side of the Republican party could learn a lot about governing from reading about representatives like the late Senator Dirksen.

there will always be 'something to buy.' A person with sufficient money can get absolutely anything he/she wants, any time, anywhere. The more money is made available, the faster the desired purchase of whatever item is desired will take place.

I would eat the hell out of that pot of pigs in a blanket surrounded by mustard greens. YUM. As for your .67 and hour. RLMAO Now thats funny as hell.You must not eat right if your brain cant process that statement is just plan stupid. Maybe you should start eating more veggies I think your brain is deteriorating.

I guess you stopped reading after the sentence that you quoted and failed to read the ensuring sentence that begins with "Specifically"? The author's contention that Obama has eliminated the work requirement for welfare is simply false.

to stop reckless procreation. We have them spade or neutered of course. The only time we don't this is if we want to breed them. When you have human beings having babies like rabbits at the tax payers expense the sensible solution would be to say "If you are unmarried and can not or will not support your child and have no spouse to support your child, then we will help you with this first one on the condition that you finish school, learn a marketable skill and get a job. If you do not complete these requirements you will get no aid. If you cannot support your child there are many people who want to adopt who are going to other countries when we have so many children right here who could excel with the proper upbringing with gasp, 2 parents."

And then these adoption agencies need to relax some of their restrictions on what it takes to adopt a child here rather than prospective parents going to Russia.

And if the same person has another child out of wedlock or without proper means to support herself and her child the same condition applies or she will have to consent to sterilization. Just like we do for our pets to keep them having having babies that will end up on the streets. That is just about the only way we will ever stop people from having one baby after another and get a bigger check every month at the tax payer's expense of course.

"Being charged would probably not result in jail time the first time, but would be a move toward causing concern to the careless breeders and future removal of funds."

Refer back to my post 10/27/12 - 02:14 am.

"Yes it would be hard to work while pregnant. It is a hard life when poor decisions are made! The availability of contraception makes not getting pregnant easy."

The success rate of any contraceptive isn't 100 %. Then the side effects become another story.
Even some types of sterilization isn't 100 % effective either.

"The current system rewards the breeder, and does not deter them. When their lives are made "hard" by their decisions there will be an incentive to change habits. The children born to these types of people are generally following the same path in life or worse. We can not continue to support the growing numbers of these people. Our current government administration is not doing a good job at all, and it starts with the President. We need an attitude "change."

Yes.

Financially able to support the family and provide for all the needs, is the best plan. That idea is what needs to be accomplished. Good luck with that when other ideas are taught by the others of authority. People get upset when abstinence programs are interjected into the public school system.You do realize if everyone was financially able before they had children, some jobs would be lost. Where would they work? For the here and now, People rely on other people's misfortune for a job/career. Where would the wic people and dfacs people work? Pharmaceutical companies would receive less profits. You are on the right track, but the right formula has to be found to accomplish the positive results, wanted... No poor people in the world.

I made a very specific argument against the Heritage Foundation article. I didn't limit myself to a mere ad hominem attack. I specified the falsehoods and failures of reason I believe to have been made by the author. So, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.